Coronation Town Council

Written by City Media

Coronation Town Council began promptly at 7 pm by adding a ‘six o’clock meeting’ as an in-camera session on Tuesday, October 8, 2013. Motion to accept agenda with addition was carried.

Procedural bylaw
First item on agenda was 6a, procedural bylaw of council and council committees 2013-618. This was a new procedural bylaw to replace bylaw 2012-599, as per recommendation #24 of the Ministerial Inspection Report. Since the last meeting there were two readings on the bylaw, and a third and final reading was motioned.
Councillor Jackie Brigley voiced at this interval that further discussion of the bylaw should be something that the next council deals with, given that “at least” two more council members would be elected at that time.
“I think there’s some items in there worth discussing,” Councillor Brigley said, in reference to the current bylaw. She cited item 9.1 as an item she would like to see return to what it used to be; whereby the person with the most votes was elected Mayor, and second most votes Deputy Mayor. The current bylaw notes that Council appoints Deputy Mayor for one-year period at the organizational meeting.
There was some questioning by members of Council as to when this was in effect; Councillor Brigley did not know the exact numerical designation of the previous bylaw.
“But I know there definitely was a bylaw when this town first stopped nominating running for Mayor,” she said, “and the person with the most votes was [elected] the Mayor, and the second most votes was the Deputy Mayor.”
Brigley also said that bylaw 22.3 (procedural guidelines for meetings requiring notice) and 24.17 (electronic copy of the Agenda for the public) should be discussed when new members arrive.
“I think if somebody comes in and doesn’t have access to the [online copy of the Agenda] . I think there should be an option for them to get a paper copy… I don’t think it should just be an [online copy],” Brigley said, “not everybody has access to that; some seniors don’t use it.”
Deputy Mayor Bonnie Danylyshen noted that she thought making a decision on the bylaw was what was necessary before the election, due to the lack of a procedural bylaw at present. CAO Sandra Kulyk spoke up to clarify the issue.
“As part of the municipal inspection the procedural bylaw was identified as having had issues and gaps, and we actually were in a period where had two bylaws that were both effected and that contradicted each-other so, for a period of time, both of those procedural bylaws were… repealed,” she said, “so at this point in time Council has no procedural bylaw.” Kulyk noted that in passing of the bylaw at issue, if the next elected council wished to change anything they could with an amending bylaw.
“But at this time at least you would be leaving your new council with the legacy of a bylaw to consider,” she said.
Ultimately Mayor Dawna Elliott motioned for third reading of the bylaw, which Councillor Brigley asked to be recorded. Ultimately the vote was that “Procedural bylaw Councillor and Council committee 2013 is hereby inactive,” said Mayor Elliott.

Funding agreement
The Family and Community Support Services Funding Agreement for January 1 to December 31, 2014 was presented for Council’s approval. No changes were made to the approved grant funding, and the motion was carried.

Subdivision electrical servicing
A proposal and quote presented by ATCO Electric was submitted to council. It outlined a three-phase power provision plan for the future Techmation lot. “[ATCO Electric] will be bringing power up from the existing power grid that basically comes up from Highway 12, bisecting that large triangular piece of land… almost where the old Roundhouse was” said CAO Kulyk, in reference to a diagram presented. “We’ll bring in the new power service from that point to the east, and poles will be set up on the northernmost boundary of the new Shirley McClellan Water Commission right-of-way.” Kulyk also noted that the plan made allowances for shared pole space with Telus, as discussed with the communications company.
It was noted in the Request for Decision document that ATCO would require the estimated cost of construction be prepaid, and that following the completion of the work any variance would be either refunded or invoiced to the Town.
The estimated customer cost was $33,928 plus tax.  “Has that slightly gone up to 35-something?” asked Mayor Elliott, “because I signed a cheque for $35,000.”  Elliott was thus informed by Kulyk that the price she was referring to would be tax inclusive. Motion to accept proposal in full was carried.

Truck sale
Councillor Brett Alderdice excused himself from the agenda item Offer to Purchase Three Ton Truck, as Home Hardware made the offer to purchase the truck and Alderdice was an employee there.
The truck at offer was a 1983 Chevrolet three-ton cab and chassis, purchased new by the Town in 1984 for $23,606. It is now fully depreciated; the reserve bid on the truck, set by Council in December 2012 was $4,000.
Some discussion ensued as to the offer of $600 for the truck – Councillor Brigley thought this was too little given the truck was still in working order.
“At this point it is not providing [the Town] with serviceable use,” Kulyk said.
Ultimately Councillor Eugene Rovensky made a motion to present a counter offer of $1,000.

Trial balance and variance report
The report was presented for information and accepted as such. CAO Kulyk mentioned that one of the recommendations on the Municipal Inspections Report was to summarize the report to present to Council.
“I have yet to develop that,” she said, “so until I get that accomplished I’ll continue to present [the report] to Council on a monthly basis in full detail.”

About the author


City Media


* indicates required